Crouch v. De Luxe Cab Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"But it is very earnestly insisted that the omitted allegation of duty was nevertheless made an issue on the trial and the court clearly and explicitly so instructed the jury. In other words the point is taken that under Rule 45 we should consider the omitted allegation in Plea 2 to be error without injury. We cannot sustain this position. In the case of Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Jackson, 225 Ala. 652 , 144 So. 813, 814 , it was held that a defect in the complaint should not necessarily cause a reversal. It was said: “ ‘When a count states a cause of action, though there may be some defect which is pointed out by demurrer, if the action is tried upon the theory that such averment is made, and the jury is required to find in accordance with the correct rule in that respect, the error is held to be without prejudice.’ “To the same effect we refer to Southern R. Co. v. Dickson, 211 Ala. 481 , 100 So. 665 ; Best Park & Amusement Co. v. Rollins, 192 Ala. 534 , 68 So. 417 , Ann.Cas.1917D, 929. “The failure to allege in Plea 2 however the duty owing by the plaintiff to the defendant is not a mere defect in the plea. On the contrary, the failure to allege such duty constitutes the omission of a vital and essential allegation in the plea, which deprives the plea of all defensive effect. It will be noticed that in the foregoing authorities, where it is held that a defect in the complaint is corrected, the complaint must still state a cause of action. In pleading defensively, while ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hickman v. Hannas

2. “"[A] person riding in an automobile driven by another is not absolved from all personal care for his own safety, but has the duty of exercising reasonable or ordinary care to avoid injury.... The duty of the passenger is, therefore, not original, with respect to the operation of the vehicle, but is resultant and is brought into effect by known and appreciated circumstances. "”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 658 So. 2d 390 - Driver v. National SEC. Fire & Cas. Co.

3. ““In pleading contributory negligence no greater particularity of averment as respects the acts, omissions, conduct or behavior relied on as constituting contributory negligence is required than is required in averring, in a complaint, the acts, omissions, conduct or behavior relied on as constituting negligence. * * ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Williams v. Pope